Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34972759›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Religion and cancer prevention: study protocol for a systematic review.

Benedikt Kretzler, Hans-Helmut König, Linéa Brandt, André Hajek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benedikt KretzlerDepartment for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany b.kretzler.ext@uke.de.
Hans-Helmut KönigDepartment for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5711-6862
Linéa BrandtDepartment for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
André HajekDepartment for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6886-2745
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral studies explored a relationship between religiousness and the utilisation of cancer screenings, as religious people may obtain an increased social network or could have certain personality traits that enhance screening use. To the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic review that sums up the evidence gained from research on that relationship. Thus, our review aims to appraise the findings of observational studies regarding that relationship. Its findings may be useful in addressing specific target groups to increase ineffectively the low cancer screening rates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Employing a predefined search algorithm, three online databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo and PubMed) will be searched. In addition, the bibliographies of the studies included in our review will be searched through manually and independently by two reviewers. We are looking for observational studies (both cross-sectional and longitudinal) which examine the association between religion and cancer screening utilisation. However, studies regarding specific samples (as ethnic minorities or religious sects) will be excluded. We expect that the studies examine various dimensions of religion, such as religious attendance or religious intensity. We will extract data that describe methodology, sample characteristics and the findings concerning our object of investigation. Moreover, a quality assessment will be performed. Two reviewers will independently select the studies, extract the data and assess the studies' quality. Disagreements will be dissolved by discussion or by inclusion of a third party. The findings will be presented narratively in text and tables. If possible, a meta-analysis will be carried out. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As no primary data are collected, the approval from an ethics committee is not required. Our review will be published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021229222.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningMeta-Analysis as TopicReligionResearch DesignReview Literature as Topicpreventive medicinepublic healthsocial medicine

Identifiers

PMID34972759
PMCPMC8720988
OpenAlexW4205565086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.